I wonder if the "rest of the Constitution" includes Habeas Corpus, the fourth amendment, or Congress's sole right to declare war.

Oh that's right, it doesn't... not to Fred, Rudy, McCain, or Romney, unless any of them want to correct me on that...

(crickets)

What a joker! His wife will be a better first lady than Bill Clinton. He's killing me and he'll kill more if elected.

Fred the entertainer; clown, joker, quisling.

Boy that Fred is so funny. What a joker!

there's another Georgie deep inside.

Gee, according to logic of this nut job, the kid who went on the killing rampage in VA Tech. had every right to get his gun despite being a mental case, because according to Thompson, there should be zero regulations from getting guns at gun shows and he could've gotten his gun there, as can any other mental case.  This whole 2nd amendment obsession just amazes me!

Government should not restrict the rights of citizens at gun shows.  What exactly does that mean?  No background checks?  No waiting periods?  No ID?  Want a gun - here, have one!  

I absolutely support a person's right to own a gun for hunting purposes.  I also support a person's right to own a gun for self-defense, or to defend their family.  In both situations, I cannot conceive of a need to not follow the proper channels.  As far as I am concerned, anyone that cannot wait 3 days for a gun and cannot present proper identification for a gun does not need to have a gun.  

Right, I think those who run their mouths about any designer cause they have should be required to wait three days and/or have the government "bless" their words--after all words have caused more riots than guns,...hummmm

As I expected, no one here really gets it.  There's no clause or qualifier in the Second Amendment that states "for hunting purposes" or "for self defense".  When it was written, as it is now, these things, among others, were taken for granted as being the just and legal uses for one's firearms.  Therefore, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that.  Murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc., have always been and will always be illegal.  Those who commit gun crimes should be prosecuted and incarcerated, but gun ownership is not a crime.  It is the complete opposite.  It is the right of average citizens (you know, We The People) to use those arms to protect themselves and their communities, to put food on their tables, and to defend their nation.  These truths are as self-evident now as they were then.

You are all pretty funny!  You scream and yell anytime the goverment messes with your cival liberties, but to hell with gun owners constitutional rights. Give me a break.  

What would help curb violence is TRUE punishment for offenders. Make prison time hell on earth and bring back cruel and unusual punishment to these gang bangers and outlaws.

You jokers crack me up. You want to restrict one of our Constitutional rights, but yell when others are restricted.

Those who want more restrictions on my second amendment rights, how about if we require journalists to have licenses, so we make sure that they report on interviews they actually conduct or documents whose veracity they actually check?

For those who want only their pet freedoms protected, how about actual freedom of religion (the freedom to express your religion as you like) rather than the militant freedom from religion that we have now?

When you make any rights conditional, you dimish all of our rights.

nuanced: I like you posts.  I don't always agree with them, but they are generally solid and insightful.  You struck gold yet again.

    All of this posturing is meaningless theatrics.  what the most obvious requirement is, is that we need change!  Change from a focus on benefiting Special Interests and a select few, who then return financial support and powerful overt and covert backing, while the majority receives only apathy, the costs, the problems and a lot of subterfuge.  Change from being led with arrogance and self-indulgence while they belligerently do what they want with an in-your-face attitude.  Change from dishonesty and from using their offices and America’s resources for their own purposes.  Yes, I feel very strong about this but I think that is understandable.  
    Who will the American people pick?  Well there is Fred Thompson who I see as probably the ideal pick for those who want 'more of the same'.  He appears as the candidate who has consistently demonstrated throughout his political and professional career that he can be directed, follow a script and focus on what others want while taking what they give.  His history tells the story.  Then there is Rudy Giuliani who I see as also being very capable of subordinating himself and of, like Fred, being the next ‘puppet’ for Special Interests.  Actually all of the Republican Party scares me as I have seen their blind loyalty and support for the current administration, as if they are owned, intimidated and controlled.  You almost expect to see them all standing at attention as they get their orders.  John McCain clearly demonstrates this concern when in 2004 he abandoned being the conscientious and independent Republican he was to become the dutiful and submissive Bush backer.  
    Then there are the Democrats and I’m just not a real Hillary Clinton fan.  I simply find her hard to trust, no matter what she says (actually that is quite true of all of them), and then I see her as being another sociopathic personality (like the one we have in office now only not so controlled by others).  Observing her in action, especially when she doesn’t realize the camera is on her, leaves me feeling that we are never presented the true person.  I like a lot of what Barack Obama says and John Edwards is interesting but I really need to know more about each of them.  
    Very likely, when all is said and done, I will just vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is as I just don’t want ‘more of the same’ and as I see it, the Republicans can’t be trusted to be different.  That comes from someone who was a long term registered Republican.  In 2003 I had just seen enough and changed my registration from ‘Republican’ to ‘Undeclared’ but actually before voting against George W. I hadn’t voted for a Democrat since John F. Kennedy.
Keep in mind that through all of this I have said, ‘as I see’ which indicates I believe it is all very subjective.  The only real recommendation I will ever make is that it needs to be totally subjective and that really means individual, not led by anyone else.  It really needs to be done with objectivity which can’t be achieved without putting all of our biases aside.  Whenever we are connected to something, when we have a bias, we are vulnerable to being manipulated, to being led and misled.  In the last two presidential elections we have vividly witnessed very strong and successful efforts to appeal to people’s biases and to manipulate people by those biases.  I suspect today that there are a great many who wish they hadn’t been so gullible in 2000 or 2004.  Remember, you can’t put any faith in anything the candidates say and especially not in what their third-party ‘hired guns’ say.  And the problem really isn’t being gullible; it is simply about our really thinking for ourselves.  It shouldn’t be about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal or Christian vs. non-Christian or about them being a woman or being black.  They really like to use those labels because once you accept the label, you’re hooked and they can then manipulate you.  Hopefully this time it will end up being who the American people really pick and not again someone who was creatively and deceptively pushed through.  [Sorry about the length of this, it just spilled out.]

I am all for the right to own firearms.  I do not think the government--state or federal should restrict the rights of our citizens any more than they have.  I have no problem with a background check if you want to go to  a gun store or sports shop to buy a firearm--that said, I do not believe that the right to purchase a firearm should be restricted or infringed upon if you purchase that firearm at a gun show.  You see--what everyone forgets--criminals will ALWAYS have firearms--it is the law abiding citizens who NEED them and should be allowed to carry them in public, openly if so desired.  I think the government should keep its nose out of our right to carry a firearm.

Well, I see the brainwashed left-wing morons are out today. Get something straight embiciles: Gun control is not about controlling guns; it's about controlling people.
You left-wing brainwashed idiots cannot even see your Democrat party selling you out to a 12-20 million illegal alien amnesty.
Federalist, that is people that believe in the Constitution and understand it, candidates really work you left-wingers up and scare the hell out of you. If that was not the case, you wouldn't waste your time your time blogging.

Go Fred!!!   You got my vote...  Red states will win again!!!

Go Fred!!!   You got my vote...  Red states will win again!!!

This whole "gun" thing makes me sick.  You have extremists, from both sides, trying to make their case either for or against gun control.  If only we could have the existing laws enforced then a lot of people would not be able to get guns that shouldn't have them.  

Shawn Bartz: It is our duty to continually better our country by amending the constitution.  History and the living situation is much different now than the living situation was in 1787.  My point, maybe we, as a society, want complete freedom to own a gun, but we should make that choice based on the time we are living in now, not our founding fathers.  (You know, I never hear anybody invoking the 3rd amendment? why, because it's obsolete).  Same thing with gay marriage.  The Constitution does not specify what a marriage is but that doesn't stop those on the social right from attempting to change it by adding an amendment.  I don't agree with the policy, but the capability is very real and should reflect life today.

Todd Tracy: Isn't Oregon blue?

Shawn Bartz: It is our duty to continually better our country by amending the constitution.  History and the living situation is much different now than the living situation was in 1787.  My point, maybe we, as a society, want complete freedom to own a gun, but we should make that choice based on the time we are living in now, not our founding fathers.  (You know, I never hear anybody invoking the 3rd amendment? why, because it's obsolete).  Same thing with gay marriage.  The Constitution does not specify what a marriage is but that doesn't stop those on the social right from attempting to change it by adding an amendment.  I don't agree with the policy, but the capability is very real and should reflect life today.

Todd Tracy: Isn't Oregon blue?

That pesky 2nd amendment. While we're abridging it, let's abridge others. Let's see, just for the hell of it, howbout the 1st, 5th, 9th, 12th and 17th? And especially the 21st?

Let's see, how many people are killed each year by drunk drivers?
How many people were killed by terrorists flying planes?
How many people die each year from knife wounds.
Perhaps we should have a mandatory three day waiting period and background checks on every person buying a car, an airline ticket, and cutlery.
You brainwashed left-wing morons. The Democrats dumbied down education so they could create the mindless, illogical, unable to think class of idiots of which you are clearly a part of. Try to come up with a legitimate argument for your facist left-wing b u l l s h i t.

congress may have the right to declare war, but the President has the right to wage it where he sees fit.  We are a republic, modeled after Roman republic, not a Democracy modeled after acient Athens. War requires quick reaction, not to be babled on in committee. That how Britain lost the initiative in the battle for Norway in 1940. By the time the British got there, the Germans held all the high ground. Our President is more akin to a consul of Rome, than a Prime Minister. His cabinet members act on his orders, not on their own like in a parlimentary democracy where you have ministers of opposing parties. The War Powers act hinders the role of Commander-in-chief, and should be recinded. That way the President doesn't have to pursuade a public and congress who are ignorant of the importance of strategic goals. The location of Iraq is important to us to influence the whole area. It provides a port to supply and over land attack on Iran. Being there, Iran tends to take us more seriously. Besides, Saddam was a mass murderer. People ask, well why only Saddam?  I do remember the Clinton administration sending troops to change governments in Somalia and the Balkans. Milsosovich falls in to the same catagory.  He was deposed, then tried, but died before a verdict in the Hague.

Thompson's also on record for favoring allowing college students to carry firearms.  Now isn't that a good idea!  Just when you thought it might be pretty safe for your son or daughter to go to a weekend fraternity or sorority party-where there just might be a little alcohol - you can feel comforted in knowing everyone is armed.  Sounds like a great combination: Guns, fraternities, and Bud.  Fred's sure right on top of the common sense thing.  Almost, but not quite as scary as Bush.  

Any other person than Hillary the Hysterical!  

Her threat to terrorist is that she will frown and shake her finger at them.  Yikes!

Do nothin' Dems on the prowl again!  
Isn't this how we got to today's war any how?  Clinton's refused to take the threats seriously in the 1990's, so Bin Laden thought ALL American were as spineless as the Clinton clan?  

So let's do a repeat, then maybe Bin Laden will accumulate even worse weapons of mass destruction on New York City!
How stupid.

As an American who supports legal gun ownership, I just wish the proponents of second amendment rights would be just as upset with infringement of the other rights we have--right to free speech and habeas corpus to name a couple.  I really think you're a hypocrite if you think no restrictions should be placed on gun purchases, but you have no problem with the government restricting our right to say what is on our minds.

BUSH AND THOMPSON SUCK.

Voted for Goldwater and Clinton twice. Member of the Ga. Guard for 8 yrs. My daddy bought me a 410 shotgun for my 12th b.d. which was on 4-14-47. I lived in city of Atlanta and shot 7 squirrels that afternoon in woods behind my house. Gun safty should be required in H.S. but it's 4 and 5 year olds who kill themselves with guns and that is the reason I gave my 410 to my brother (who died putting up a dear stand at age 67). Of all the things America has on it's plate the nra seems un-necessary. It would be nice if Fred would mention his daughter who died on the street. The one he had abandoned. Thanks for your time and patience with me.

The only purpose for the 2nd Amendment was that we the people could rise up in armed revolt against our Government if they should become totalitarian or oppress our rights. It was the only Amendment that the Founding Fathers felt was so important that they would not accept the Constitution without it. They knew that if the wrong people got control of our country they could reverse all the freedom they had worked so hard to achieve. That does not mena anyone who supports the rights of the people under the Constitution, believe that anyone can get a gun and kill people. But lets be honest, even with gun control laws now on the books, people still get the guns.
As to who we should put in office, STUPID AMERICANS< WE ARE NOT A TWO PARTY SYSTEM< WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS RUNNING FOR OFFICE< THE PRESS AND THE PEOPLE RESTRICT FREE SPEECH AND OUR ACCESS TO NON REPUBLICANS AND NON DEMONCRATS.. All we have now is an insider trade.

Americans expecting a candidate genuinely committed to the full complement of civil liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights have one choice: Ron Paul.

Shawn - You forgot part of the Second Amendment.  Here it is in its entirety:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  

I don't think the Framers intended for a 12 year old to be able to buy an Uzi at a gun show.  Just a hunch, though.

I am a strict constructionalist when it comes to the second amendment; the right to bear arms should protect all firearms available at the time of the Constitution's ratification, because protecting ALL arms would mean private citizens have a Constitutional right to bazookas and nuclear warheads; when one considers that scenario, clearly what the founding fathers envisioned was based on the technology available at the time.  

I thought the constitution "is not a suicide pact?" I guess they meant all parts of the constitution that I don't like (i.e., everything except the 2nd Amendment) is not a suicide pact. The 2nd Amendment is a "suicide pact" -- you know, my "cold dead hands" and all that.  

The 2nd Amendment is just as important as the other amendments; however, by judging the value that most on the Right place on all the others, that means the 2nd Amendment is worthless and should be thrown out because the scary Terrorists are coming to kill your children.

Nicholas: I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree with your premise.  While we all should be continually striving to improve our nation, it must be done within the framework of the Constitution.  This document is the rock upon which our nation is built, and that foundation must be solid, or our entire civilization collapses.  No part of it is ever obsolete (the Third Amendment, although never invoked, is still an effective hedge against tyranny).  Even though some mis-steps have been taken (Prohibition, which was repealed, and the Income Tax, which should be), the Founders deliberately made the amendment process difficult, and it's a process that needs to be taken seriously.  It was designed that way to avoid amendments on a whim, so our sacred and unalienable rights can't be trampled by whoever is in the majority.  That's why we live in a representative Republic, not a Democracy.  The Founders knew pure Democracy was just a tyranny of the majority.  The Constitution was written to protect the rights of all the people, popular and unpopular views alike.  To say it needs to be continually amended to "keep up with the times" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what the document actually is and what it actually means.  Restricting or prohibiting firearms ownership is always the first step toward totalitarian rule.  You disarm the population so they can no longer resist.  After that, all other rights can merely be cast aside.  Why do you think the British were marching to Lexington and Concord?  Because they were ordered to confiscate the Colonists' guns.

Hey Reg, east valley,AND ALL THE REST OF YOU,

RON PAUL - RON PAUL  -  RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL

Ron Paul is our last hope. The only American running for President. The rest are Bolsheviks or Nazi's.

My Wednesday , open broad day light a police officer gunned down when stopping a J-walker. A J-Walker who was a wanted felon,, Illegal, returned deporter. Yes, better arm today as the Mexican invasion continues, The no longer trickle across the border,, they are trucked in and dumped a safe houses..

At some point there will be a major confrontation. Will you be able to defend your home and family. The varmits of yesterday had four legs and today they have two!!!

To Carrie, Eastern Iowa:

I can easily conceive of a reason why a person would not want to wait three days to purchase a gun.  Simply put, circumstances arise which cause an individual to deem it necessary to purchase a gun for self defense.  Perhaps one decided he needs a second gun, or a larger gun, or a different type of gun.  Here in Georgia, any resident whom posesses a carry permit can purchase a gun with no wait, no background check. ( the background check and wait period has been observed in acquiring the permit )

Those who are wanting to restrict gun show transations have probably never been to one.  Most gun show vendors hold a FFL and as such must conduct
background checks.  Only individuals who do not hold a FFL can sell weapons to another individual without a background check.  And, guess what, that is the same outside a gun show...look in the classified ads.

I enjoy how people conveniently forget what the 2nd Amendment actually states.  The 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee the right to bear arms - it guarantees the right to bear arms for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia.

The Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

By my book that pretty much means that if you're not a member of the defense forces for your state or nation - that you're not guaranteed a right to own a gun.

Thanks Nicholas, Minneaps, MN
Sometimes I feel we should just agree to disagree and have some fun.

Again the mainstream media has given you Fred, Hillary, and Giuliani, with no mention of Mike Huckabee. What are you all afraid of? There is no stronger backer of the second amendment than Huckabee, period. If you want a president that will reunite Americans and bring her back to greatness, Mike Huckabee is the only candidate to fit the bill. I dare you to take a serious look at this candidate. You won't find him in the Mainstream media though,you will have to dig. Do a google search on Mike Huckabee for President and discover as alot of other Americans have a breath of fresh air.

Our bill of rights are God given. Read the Federalist Papers and you will read the minds of our founding fathers.

Isn't the individual's right to bear arms
superceded by the right to life. After all,
the founding fathers said the essential rights
are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, the right to liberty becomes meaningless. its rendered moot.

People do have the right to bear arms. However,
without infringing upon this right, the government
can still make efforts to keep guns out of the
wrong hands.

If the state is to ensure the public's safety,
and protect the right to life, then it should
be able to review an individuals criminal and
mental health history before someone purchases a gun.

Whether or not most criminals acquire guns from
other sources, its hole in the system, and its a
hole which needs to be closed.

Encroachment upon one's right to 'bear arms' should be tempered with a proper definition of 'arms'.  

I would infer the intent was to provide for citizen ownership of firearms for hunting, sport and in times of crisis, defense of one's home.  

I would futher infer that in the era in which the article was drafted, firearms level of destruction was limited to such items as long rifles and pistols.  Would the interpretation in that day forbid the ownership of a field canon?  

Obviously, one would assume you not hunt with such a caliber weapon but to scale to today's arguments, "it was a really BIG bear".

If we consider a field canon as a protected 'arm' under the constitution, why not argue for your right to own thermonuclear devices as well?  I'm sure there are bigger bear out there you may need such a device for.

Gun ownership is a large responsibility for any person, requiring levelheadedness and most of all, common sense.

Wouldn't it then be common sense that a citizen in a country run by 'freely elected' representation has no need 'bear arms' that kill on a mass scale in a short duration?  Why support the ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons?  Trying to set a new record of 10 bear in 10 seconds?  Shouldn't need to hunt for 2 or 3 winters now!

It could also be inferred that the purpose was to be properly armed in the event of national emergency; a citizen militia.  Hmm.. I recall national defense starts at the National Guard and the other Armed Forces.  Others interpret the need for the arms to protect themselves from the established government and if necessary, provide the common man a means to overthrow a failing, unjust rule.  I say that's a bit underhanded given our belief in our democratic society (yes, we know that we still suffer from the choices made by the Electoral Colleges).  Until that changes, your vote should be your weapon against what you see as an unfit governing body.

So.. we don't need a Mac-10 for pheasant hunting.. We are misguided if we think we can take our .50cal into the backyard and fire off a few rounds into some paper targets hanging on our neighbor's tree..and we certainly don't need a couple of Tomahawks in the hall closet to fend off the city fathers trying to evict me from my land so they can build an overpass on it.

So.. you call my interpretation extreme.  As a gun owner, I see the basic needs I have which a firearm provides for 'needs' (my 12 gauge, unmodified, Mossberg shotgun works great for bird, deer, a few paper targets at my local gun range, and if necessary, protection of my wife and two daughters from some drug-crazed, Uzi wielding kid breaks in one night looking for something to sell to fund his habit).

I'm reading stuff on Thompson, and how all of the Republicans see him as the next Ronald Reagan.  What I see is the next Richard Nixon.  A sleazy politician who will do anything to get elected and support the GOP agenda.

Our forefathers drafted a constitution that states the "right to bear arms will not be infringed". Fine, but to what class of "arms" where these gentlemen referring when they penned this statement? Muzzle loaders, folks. Single shot, muzzle loading firearms where their sole frame of reference two centuries ago.

So, let's not "infringe" upon any citizen's right to owe a muzzle loader, no matter how nutty his or her fruitcake. But, for all other classes of firearms registration and a competent use demonstration are not merely in order, they are what a rational society would demand; especially, in this new age of terrorist activity.

Is that about to happen in the USA? Heavens, no. Our Conservative brethren are way too anachronistic and way too frightened for such rationality. They must have their guns, regardless, as Linus had to have his blanket.

It is little wonder that Bin Laden has expressed full confidence that the weaponry his soldiers will require for their next US operation will be readily obtained on the open market. No doubt, at one of "Freddie's" gun shows.

People tend to forget that the 2nd amendment refers to state-run militias, not specifically to individual citizens.  The Founding Fathers were a lot more concerned that individual states had control over at least some of the military (as a balance against the federal government) than whether citizens were armed to defend themselves against criminals.  That interpretation is more a matter of tradition and lower-court rulings than anything outright stated in the Constitution.

What's wrong with keeping crazies from buying guns?  Or cracking down on the tiny percentage of gun dealers that supply 90% of guns criminals use?  Nothing I can see.

why is freddy now talking about gun rights, or any rights?  When he was senator he did not submitt one bill to amend any rights. He is as lame duck now as he was as a senator.  He is a worthless piece of crap.

Gun ownership in itself is not the crime.  The possession of firearms should not be inhibited.  Rather, the question of firearm utilization is what should be navigated.  The imposition of stronger deterrents against improper uses of firearms (e.g. murder) should be in place, not the banning and conditioning of Constitutional amendments.  Those rights are plain and self-evident; therefore, tampering with them hurts the viability of future generations to have legal bases upon which to take action to defend their property and lives.  Those such as Cho Seung-Hui and Dylan Klebold were manic killers who were set upon killing as many individuals as possible prior to facing the consequences for their own action... those criminal bastards cannot rationally be reined in and controlled by the rule of law when their sadistic desires get in the way.  However, most criminals are weak in constitution, which makes them conducive to having their convictions swayed by greater degrees of punishment.  Thus, greater deterrents against improper firearm usage, at least in my humble-though-caustic opinion, would serve society far more effectively than gun control.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):